re: any of those few old articles over on Skyscript
one wonders whether your thinking on any of those topics has altered/varied slightly or perhaps time simply validated all
Not much! Of course, there was a difference between original work and the sort of thing where Deb would ring me and ask for a piece on something.
One thing that has changed is that people calling themselves traditional astrologers have become as dogmatic as the sort of people who used to criticise us as a bunch of medievalists! If you look at the articles in
Traditional Astrologer, you can see that we drew the line at minor aspects and outer planets ruling signs, but we all used the outer planets when appropriate.
Our traditionalism was
> rejection of innovation based on theory rather than fact
> refusal to discard ideas just to keep up with the latest intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) fads
> a belief that astrology had to stand on it's own feet. As Deb once wrote, "Astrology should be based on a study of astrology. No other skill, no matter how admirable, will lead to the correct interpretation of a horoscope."